In a candid conversation with aif.ru, actress Svetlana Nemolyaeva and Alexander Lazarev, the widower of the artist, opened up about a moment that lingered in memory for years. They discussed the tension surrounding a kiss shared on screen between Nemolyaeva and Tatyana Doronina in the beloved film Once More About Love. The remarks reveal how a single scene can ripple through a life, coloring perceptions and friendships long after the cameras stop rolling.
Nemolyaeva described a time when she wrestled with her own feelings about the film and even about her creative process. She admitted that for a long period she faced a difficult relationship with painting, a line that is often used to describe the broader struggles of artistic interpretation and emotional response in the performing arts. The moment on screen, she explained, was more than a simple on-screen kiss; it became a point of personal reflection that intersected with the dynamics of the cast and the expectations placed upon them. Speaking with candor, she acknowledged that watching the scene could be painful because it put her husband, Sashka, in a position of visible affection with another woman on film. Yet she also recognized the complexity of watching a performance that was both intimate and public, a fusion that can be hard to reconcile for anyone who has built a life around shared creative ambition.
The conversation touched on the timing of the film’s release, noting that Once More About Love appeared in cinemas at a delicate moment in the couple’s life. The project was released when their son Alexander had just reached the age of one, a milestone that often brings a fresh perspective to a family’s narrative. The proximity of the film’s debut to this intimate family moment underscored how artistic work and personal life can intertwine in unexpected ways. The discussion suggested that the timing added another layer to how audiences and critics perceived the movie, influencing interpretations of love, loyalty, and art during a period of personal transition for the family.
Reflecting on the evolution of her view, Nemolyaeva shared that she once told Sashka that a first glance had been enough for her to form a lasting impression. Over time, however, her perspective shifted. She described a revaluation that occurred as the years passed, explaining that she now looks at the film as a collaborative achievement, a work created by two performers whose joint effort carried the film forward. In her view, what might have felt like a personal sting in youth can mature into an appreciation for the craft behind the performance and the subtleties of the actors’ interplay. This shift demonstrates how memory and artistic assessment can evolve, allowing audiences to see a film’s value through a more nuanced lens rather than through raw emotion alone.
Nemolyaeva also pointed out that Once More About Love was among the early Soviet cinema productions that leaned toward exploring life and affection rather than overt political messaging or social commentary about the era. She noted that while Soviet films of that period often carried propaganda undertones, this particular title focused more on human experience, love, and personal connection. The actress emphasized that many filmmakers of the time contributed richly to the country’s cinematic heritage, but the presence of ideological undertones was difficult to ignore. Her reflection highlights the tension between storytelling that centers on private life and the heavier expectations that sometimes accompanied art produced within a political framework. The conversation underlines how viewers interpret historical cinema differently as time passes, and how films can be re-appraised as cultural artifacts rather than solely as products of their political moment.
In closing, the discussion touched on related memories from the entertainment world, recalling a separate anecdote involving Pelsh and Maslyakov. It referenced Maslyakov’s deleted KVN scene, which had customarily sparked conversations about censorship and humor within the community. This aside provides a glimpse into the broader ecosystem of performers, producers, and improvisers who navigated the boundaries of television, stage, and film during that era. The exchange, rich with personal memory and artistic context, paints a portrait of a cinema landscape where talent, friendship, and occasional friction coexisted, shaping the way audiences remember these iconic works and the people who brought them to life. The dialogue stands as a testament to how artists articulating their experiences can illuminate the enduring resonance of cinema across generations.